Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FRETTE v. FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 14+8 Violation of Art. 6-1 Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FRETTE c. FRANCE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Remboursement partiel frais et dépens Non-violation de l'art. 14+8 (französisch)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• nomos.de (Aufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Grundrechtstheorien in Europa - kulturelle Bestimmtheit und universeller Gehalt

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.06.2001 - 36515/97
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

Papierfundstellen

• FamRZ 2003, 149

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.09.1999 - 32377/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  Pointing out that where sexual orientation was at issue, there was a need for particularly convincing and weighty reasons (see Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom, nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96, 27 September 1999, and Smith and Grady and Salgueiro da Silva Mouta, cited above), he submitted that nothing could reasonably justify his being totally barred from adopting.

  This is of course true and I had no doubt in finding for example that there was a breach of Article 8 in the case of homosexuals of both sexes who were dismissed from the armed forces for homosexuality (see Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom, nos. 31417/96 and 32377/96, 27 September 1999, and Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos.

  31417/96 and 32377/96, § 71, 27 September 1999).

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  Refusing to grant a person prior administrative approval for a possible adoption was not a decision that interfered with a person's private life and so it did not fall within the scope of Article 8. While respect for private life should also comprise "to a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings" (see Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, p. 33-34, § 29), the right to adopt was not included as such among the rights guaranteed by the Convention (see Di Lazzaro v. Italy, no. 31924/96, Commission decision of 10 July 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90-B, p. 134).

  In the Court's case-law, the notion of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which comprises, inter alia, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world (Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, p. 33, § 29), the right to recognition of one's identity (Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 28, § 24) and the right to "personal development" (Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 47, ECHR 2001-I).

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  Moreover, the right to respect for family life presupposes the existence of a family and does not safeguard the mere desire to found a family (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, pp. 14-15, § 31, and Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 32, § 62).

  It is necessary but it is also sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the provisions in question (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 35, § 71; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, § 22; and Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 585, § 22).

• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  According to the Court's case-law, a difference in treatment is discriminatory for the purposes of Article 14 if it "has no objective and reasonable justification", that is if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, among other authorities, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, pp. 32-33, § 24, and Van Raalte, cited above, p. 186, § 39).

  It is necessary but it is also sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the provisions in question (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 35, § 71; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, § 22; and Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 585, § 22).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  Thlimmenos ./. Griechenland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  All the circumstances of which the applicant complained therefore fell within the ambit of Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, ECHR 2000-IV).

  My last point relates to the applicant's argument based on Thlimmenos v. Greece ([GC], no. 34369/97, ECHR 2000-IV) which the present judgment, moreover, does not follow in the section setting out the Court's reasoning.

• EGMR, 21.12.1999 - 33290/96

  SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  Referring to the procedure adopted by the Court in Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal (no. 33290/96, ECHR 1999-IX), the applicant considered it appropriate to place the issue in the context of Article 14 of the Convention.

  In this connection, there is a distinction between the instant case and Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal (no. 33290/96, ECHR 1999-IX), in which there was already an established family life between the applicant and his daughter, and the decision of the Lisbon Court of Appeal to award parental authority over the child to the applicant's ex-wife constituted a clear infringement of his right to respect for his family life and consequently fell within the scope of Article 8. It follows in the instant case that the rejection by the Conseil d'Etat of the applicant's application for authorisation to adopt did not entail a direct interference with his rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  However, that was because there had been an interference in the applicants' private lives, as in other famous cases such as Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45) or Modinos v. Cyprus (judgment of 22 April 1993, Series A no. 259), the circumstances of which are so well known that I will not go over them again (criminal punishment of homosexual relations).
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  The applicant did not seek compensation for any non-pecuniary damage he may have sustained in this respect, and the Court has consistently held that it does not have to consider such an issue of its own motion (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 155, ECHR 2000-VII, and, mutatis mutandis, Scuderi v. Italy, judgment of 24 August 1993, Series A no. 265-A, p. 8, § 20).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 27417/95

  Cha'are Shalom ve Tsedek ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  Since the delicate issues raised in the case, therefore, touch on areas where there is little common ground amongst the member States of the Council of Europe and, generally speaking, the law appears to be in a transitional stage, a wide margin of appreciation must be left to the authorities of each State (see, mutatis mutandis, Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, judgment of 26 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1364, § 44, and Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  In the Court's case-law, the notion of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which comprises, inter alia, the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world (Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, p. 33, § 29), the right to recognition of one's identity (Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 28, § 24) and the right to "personal development" (Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 47, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

  BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79
• EGMR, 22.04.1993 - 15070/89

  MODINOS c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 06.02.1976 - 5589/72
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 39594/98
• EKMR, 10.07.1997 - 31924/96

  DI LAZZARO contre l'ITALIE
• EKMR, 10.07.1975 - 6482/74

  X. c. BELGIQUE et PAYS-BAS

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BVerfG, 19.02.2013 - 1 BvL 1/11

  Sukzessivadoption

  Eine entsprechende Entwicklung ist in der Rechtsprechung sowohl des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (vgl. einerseits BVerfGE 6, 389 und andererseits BVerfGE 105, 313; 124, 199) wie auch der europäischen Gerichte erkennbar (vgl. zur rechtlichen Gleichstellung eingetragener Lebenspartner im Allgemeinen EuGH…, Urteil vom 1. April 2008 - C-267/06 - Tadao Maruko/Versorgungsanstalt der Deutschen Bühnen, EuZW 2008, S. 314 ff.; zur Einzeladoption durch eine homosexuelle Person einerseits früher EGMR, Urteil vom 26. Februar 2002 - 35615/97 - Fretté/Frankreich, FamRZ 2003, S. 149 ff.; andererseits jetzt EGMR…, Urteil vom 22. Januar 2008 - 43546/02 - E.B./Frankreich, NJW 2009, S. 3637 ff.).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 30141/04

  [FRE]

  Others were examined under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8. These included, inter alia, different age of consent under criminal law for homosexual relations (L. and V. v. Austria, nos. 39392/98 and 39829/98, ECHR 2003-I), the attribution of parental rights (Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, ECHR 1999-IX), permission to adopt a child (Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, ECHR 2002-I, and E.B. v. France, cited above) and the right to succeed to the deceased partner's tenancy (Karner, cited above).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08

  Khamtokhu und Aksenchik ./. Russland: Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe nur für Männer …

  Since the Convention is first and foremost a system for the protection of human rights, the Court must have regard to the changing conditions within the respondent State and within Contracting States generally and respond, for example, to any emerging consensus as to the standards to be achieved (see, mutatis mutandis, Schwizgebel, cited above, §§ 79-80; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 81, ECHR 2007-V; Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 40, ECHR 2002-I; and Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II; see also Biao, cited above, §§ 131-33).

• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 58817/15

  D.B. u.a. ./. Schweiz: Anerkennung einer Leihmutterschaft im Ausland

  Je souhaite insister sur le fait que la Convention ne confère pas un droit à l'adoption en tant que tel, ni le droit d'avoir des enfants (Fretté c. France, no 36515/97, § 32, CEDH 2002-I, et Moretti et Benedetti c. Italie, no 16318/07, § 47, 27 avril 2010).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 18766/11

  Italien muß Rechtsrahmen für gleichgeschlechtliche Lebensgemeinschaft schaffen

  protecting it, particularly where the case raises sensitive moral or ethical issues, the margin will be wider (see X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, 22 April 1997, § 44, Reports 1997-II; Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 41, ECHR 2002-I; and Christine Goodwin, cited above, § 85).
• EGMR, 26.07.2002 - 32911/96

  MEFTAH AND OTHERS v. FRANCE

  Or, en l'espèce, la Cour note que les requérants n'ont pu connaître le sens des conclusions de l'avocat général avant l'audience de la Cour de cassation et, partant, n'ont pu y répondre par une note en délibéré (voir, mutatis mutandis, arrêt Fretté c. France, no 36515/97, § 50, CEDH 2002-I), alors même qu'ils ont le droit de déposer avant l'audience un mémoire signé par eux (paragraphe 24 ci-dessus).

  Ce constat s'inscrit dans le droit fil de la jurisprudence de la Cour, que j'approuve en principe (voir, en dernier lieu, Fretté c. France, no 36515/97, CEDH 2002-I).

  Mais le récent arrêt Fretté c. France ([GC], no 36515/97, CEDH 2002-I) a étendu ces exigences au cas d'un justiciable qui, devant le Conseil d'Etat, était autorisé à ne pas constituer avocat et ne l'avait pas fait ; et la Cour a relevé qu'il n'avait pu obtenir le sens général des conclusions du commissaire du Gouvernement et avait donc été privé de la possibilité de déposer une note en délibéré pour y répliquer, et elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 (ibidem, §§ 49-51).

• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 4916/07

  Alexejew ./. Russland

  Il reste cependant des points sur lesquels il n'y a pas encore de consensus au niveau européen, par exemple en ce qui concerne l'autorisation d'adoption pour les couples homosexuels (Fretté c. France, no 36515/97, CEDH 2002-I, et E.B. c. France [GC], no 43546/02, CEDH 2008-(...)) ou le droit au mariage, et la Cour a confirmé que sur ces questions les autorités internes disposaient d'une ample marge d'appréciation.
• VG Sigmaringen, 25.09.2008 - 8 K 159/07

  Zur Eignung von Adoptionsbewerbern

  Primäres Ziel der Adoptionsvermittlung ist nicht, den Bewerbern bei der Verwirklichung ihrer Wünsche und Vorstellungen zu helfen (VG Hamburg, Urteil vom 18.12.2001 - 13 VG 2780/2001 -, m.w.N.; im Anschluss daran ebenso VG Hamburg…, Urteil vom 01.12.2005 - 13 K 3059/05 -, juris Rn. 20 ff.), sondern stets diejenigen Adoptionswilligen auszuwählen, die auf allen Gebieten die günstigsten Voraussetzungen bieten (vgl. dazu EGMR, Urteil vom 26.02.2002, FamRZ 2003, S. 149, 150 [re. Sp.]).
• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 32576/96
  Les requérants étaient défendus par quatre avocats, tous du barreau de Bruxelles ; c'est là une différence essentielle d'avec l'affaire Fretté c. France (no 36515/97, § 49, CEDH 2002-I).

  La jurisprudence récente de la Cour me donne à penser que la possibilité de réplique écrite aux conclusions d'une autorité comme le ministère public à une cour suprême, à prendre alors en compte par ladite cour, est un élément important, voire essentiel, pour assurer le respect du principe du contradictoire (arrêts Fretté c. France, no 36515/97, § 50, CEDH 2002-I, APBP c. France, no 38436/97, §§ 26-27, 21 mars 2002, 1mmeubles Groupe Kosser c. France, no 38748/97, §§ 25-26, 21 mars 2002, et Meftah et autres précité, § 52).

• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17

  MUHAMMAD v. SPAIN

  Such a measure therefore falls within the scope of Article 8. It is not necessary to decide whether a simple check of a person's identification papers also falls within the scope of Article 8. For Article 14 to be applicable it is enough for the facts of the case to fall within the wider ambit of private life (see Konstantin Markin v. Russia, no. 30078/06 § 129, ECHR 2012; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; E.B. v. France, no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; and Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 31, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 45330/99

  S.L. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2004 - 71074/01
• EGMR, 04.10.2012 - 43631/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 07.01.2025 - 59180/15

  MINASYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2005 - 71598/01

  U. M. gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 75218/01

  COLLECTIF NATIONAL D'INFORMATION ET D'OPPOSITION A L'USINE MELOX - COLLECTIF STOP …
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 12694/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03

  KORELC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2004 - 71557/01

  KUHAREC alias KUHARECA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 74286/01

  LARINE ET LARINA c. RUSSIE